by Peter Holtmann
We have all heard the phrase, “A common language separated by different countries.” But what about same language separated by different standards?
Let me answer this question with another. Did you know that in the world of environmental auditing there are essentially four key standards that a certification body and its auditors must use? These are ISO 17021, ISO 14000, ISO 14050, and ISO 19011. Each of these standards has different definitions for competence, auditor, audit, nonconformance, and continual improvement. How can we communicate their requirements without a consistent message?
Osmosis. Yes, it sounds unrelated to the above discussion, but I have a theory. The Oxford English Dictionary defines osmosis as the “net movement of solvent molecules through a partially permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, in order to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides.” In other words, the net movement of a solvent is from the less concentrated to the more concentrated solution, which tends to reduce the difference in both concentrations.
The “membrane” in this illustration shows a differential of ideas and context. On one side we have a raft of ideas on what is loosely termed competent audit personnel performing a series of tasks against an agreed requirement. On the other side we have a pool of personnel entering the profession and absorbing the content (media) through knowledge and experiences and arriving at an understanding of what it takes to remain employed. At some stage during this process equilibrium is reached and the industry appears happy to receive auditors who demonstrate an acceptable outcome.
But which standard’s definition of competence, audit, nonconformance, etc., wins out? Which one did the professional adopt? Was it a combination? The answer lies with the consumer of service or product.
Horse meat!
I’m not being profane, extolling the virtues of horse meat, or suggesting it’s the answer to the questions raised. What I am saying is that the discovery of horse meat in the European food chain illustrates my point. The market accepted outcomes of inspections, checks, and controls that delivered an expected product to consumers—the market here being the food manufacturing industry—and it established the controls by which an inspection or audit found the process acceptable.
The consumer remained content and unaware of the horse meat in the supply chain for what could be a considerable period of time. So what happened? In this case, it appears that someone inspected or audited by means of a different set of parameters and used a different set of competencies to reach a completely new outcome.
How is this so? If all professionals working in industry were trained, normalized, and approved based on the same set of standards using the same international protocols for audit and inspection, none of this would have occurred.
But this is where the osmosis theory adds the kicker. Take into account the translation of a set of standards or protocols from one language to another, add to that how these standards are adopted at a national level, add to that how auditors are being trained within a specific market and then how each country regulates the standards differently, consider the personnel used to enforce the standards, and finally add to that the number of manufacturers that adopt these standards as business improvement tools instead of marketing tools.
That’s a lot of mix in the solution already. But what sits on the other side of the “membrane?” Money! Profit margins, market access, consumer preferences, and stakeholder’s investments.
In the instance of the horse meat, the money won out. It was in greater concentration and thus financial gain leached into the regulatory chain creating an inequitable balance. At least, until the balance was shifted by a series of events starting with an inspection and culminating with adverse public reaction generated by the media.
Now I could wax lyrical all day about how regulatory frameworks are used to control these matters and their inherent risks, but that’s for another article. What is important here is how do we saturate one side of the membrane to ensure the proper outcomes are achieved? We need to communicate.
We need to ensure standards are developed and communicated with clarity and that they are easily implemented across languages and regulatory frameworks. Most important, we need to ensure that consumers know that there are standards that regulate their experiences with products and services and that they should expect competent outcomes from the inspections and audits of these standards.
This may sound easy, but allow me to share a recent experience with you. I was attending an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working group meeting in which we were discussing determining auditor competencies for event sustainability in the event planning industry. Specifically, we were discussing how to implement management systems that produce events that focus on social, economic, and environmental sustainability.
The group convened for three days to build a draft technical standard that would eventually be voted on by the broader standards community as an inclusion into ISO 17021. The draft presented to the group was very well constructed and logically thought out from a certification body’s perspective. It included definitions, requirements for knowledge against management systems, and then an annex at the back of the document discussing how the management system principles could be applied in the events industry.
As with all standards writing, annexes are not considered requirements. They are simply informative material. Additionally, this technical standard was only going to be administered at certification body level. It wasn’t for general consumption.
However, we were writing a technical standard that engaged an industry new to standardization, but new to the process. We’d chosen to address the industry’s specific needs in an informative annex. The bulk of the technical standard was what the certification bodies would be applying when choosing auditors for the events industry. It included references to environmental management system standards, some quick references to sustainability and risk management normative, and then a mention of social accountability.
I was witnessing an exercise in trying to shoehorn an industry into current practices and frameworks it was completely unfamiliar with. I watched the industry stakeholders at the table becoming increasingly uneasy about this. The more they challenged the content and the competencies, the greater the gap in communications became apparent. Finally, they said, “We don’t need to do this with you. If we don’t get our point across and our needs documented, we just won’t use you guys.” It was a fair comment.
Remember that the technical standard had elements of social, economic, and environmental issues and discussed how they relate to the events industry. The standards stakeholders were extremely comfortable with the environmental component and this dominated nearly two thirds of the group’s focus. Not so for the event planning representatives. When we finally got to discuss the social and economic effect it was quickly pushed over to the industry to “summarize” its expectations and then we were back to normative content.
What was missing here was communication between both parties. The industry didn’t initially describe its specific nuances and expectations to the working group and the standards stakeholders didn’t explain their regulatory frameworks and what models we could work with to develop the technical standard’s normative text.
A simple matter of a few hours presenting and discussing expectations would have steered us to the eventual outcome of an inclusion into the normative about language used in the events industry and how it applies to conformity assessment—content that all auditors entering this sector must be knowledge competent in.
It took us three days to reach the point of developing a Rosetta Stone of sorts that ensured auditors turning up to an event management system audit were conversant, knowledgeable, and capable of communicating with events personnel and determine effective outcomes. At last! Equilibrium.
The moral of this story is to engage in more communication with the customer, with our industry, and with the developers of regulatory frameworks. The more we exchange ideas, concepts, and needs across the membrane of international and industry-specific expectations, the more knowledgeable both parties become and the greater the ability to deliver the expected outcomes. Does this guarantee equilibrium? No, it’s not a guarantee. But it is the most successful way of meeting expectations and raising the confidence of customers when they are presented with competent, capable auditors who can deliver positive outcomes. It will improve the consumers’ experience with better products and service.
In other words, more beef less horse.
About the author
Peter Holtmann is president and CEO of Exemplar Global (formerly RABQSA International Inc.) and has more than 10 years of experience in the service and manufacturing industries. He received his bachelor’s degree in chemistry from the University of Western Sydney in Australia and has worked in industrial chemicals, surface products, environmental testing, pharmaceutical, and nutritional products. Holtmann has served on various international committees for the National Food Processors Association in the United States and on the Safe Quality Foods auditor certification review board.